All of the three major theories of the firm, i.e., the transaction cost theory, knowledge-based theory and the entrepreneurship theory, offer some insightful analyses of the nature of the firm. However, they all have limitations and weaknesses in answering the fundamental question of the existence of the firm. In addition, they are all partial due to their particular focus on the multifaceted phenomenon of the firm. We argue that it is necessary and sufficient to develop a comprehensive yet integrative theory of the firm that combines the three competing yet complementary logics. Toward this end, we propose an aspirational community theory of the firm (ACT) as a candidate theory by conceptualizing the firm as an aspirational community, the core of which is a group of like-minded people sharing similar or same aspiration/vision. To explain the comparative advantage of the firm vis-à-vis market, we make a distinction between contractual labor and aspirational labor, the former being defined as services provided by a laborer in fulfillment of a contract while the latter as services provided by a laborer in pursuit of an aspiration; and argue that firms exist because while the market may be effective and efficient for allocating contractual labor it is less effective and efficient than the firms for allocating aspirational labor.

Filer i denne post: 1

All of the three major theories of the firm, i.e., the transaction cost theory, knowledge-based theory and the entrepreneurship theory, offer some insightful analyses of the nature of the firm. However, they all have limitations and weaknesses in answering the fundamental question of the existence of the firm. In addition, they are all partial due to their particular focus on the multifaceted phenomenon of the firm. We argue that it is necessary and sufficient to develop a comprehensive yet integrative theory of the firm that combines the three competing yet complementary logics. Toward this end, we propose an aspirational community theory of the firm (ACT) as a candidate theory by conceptualizing the firm as an aspirational community, the core of which is a group of like-minded people sharing similar or same aspiration/vision. To explain the existence of the firm, we make a distinction between contractual labor and aspirational labor, the former being defined as services provided by a laborer in fulfillment of a contract while the latter as services provided by a laborer in pursuit of an aspiration; and argue that firms exist because while the market may be effective and efficient for allocating contractual labor it is less effective and efficient than the firms for allocating aspirational labor.

In this paper, I first briefly introduce Moon & Roehl’s (1993, 2001) imbalance theory of FDI, then I identify its three deficiencies that may be responsible for the relative lack of impact of the potentially powerful imbalance logic, and then I propose an asymmetry reduction theory (ARC) of FDI and explain its aspiration-resource-control (ARC) framework. I conclude the paper with a brief discussion of the OLI framework being a special case of the ARC framework.

Filer i denne post: 1

With China’s rapid economic progress and steady increase in its international
influence, China has gradually embarked on the soft power idea and has made
developing its soft power as its national strategy. We argue that China’s soft
power strategy is in accordance to Chinese Confucian culture and political value
and fits well with its grand strategy of peaceful rise. Based on existing
conceptualizations of soft power, we expanded the sources of soft power to six
pillars: cultural attractiveness, political values, development model, international
institutions, international image, and economic temptation. We also identified
three channels for wielding soft power: formal, economic, and cultural
diplomacies. Putting all the basics together, we present an integrative model of
soft power. Accordingly, we analyze the sources and limits of China’s soft
power and suggest how to improve it.

Filer i denne post: 1

In this paper, I first critique the composition-based view of Yadong Luo and John Child for understanding how resource-poor firms survive and thrive. To remedy the deficiencies in their perspective, I then propose a dynamic theory of compositional advantage and strategy. Here, the compositional advantage is redefined as the attractiveness of the composition of the producer’s offering in terms of scope and perceived value/price ratio. I identify five ways or basic compositional strategies to improve the value/price ratio. A firm may have an overall compositional strategy that is composed of some or all of the five basic compositional strategies. I argue there are three indispensable key success factors for a composition-based competition, i.e., aspiration (ambition-position asymmetry), attitude (being ALERT), and action (turning asymmetry into advantage). I also discuss the particular relevance of the present theory to understanding Chinese firms. I conclude with managerial implications and suggestions for future research.

In this paper, I first critique the composition-based view of Yadong Luo and John Child for understanding how resource-poor firms survive and thrive. To remedy the deficiencies in their perspective, I then propose a dynamic theory of compositional advantage and strategy. Here, the compositional advantage is redefined as the attractiveness of the composition of the producer’s offering in terms of scope and perceived value/price ratio. I identify five ways or basic compositional strategies to improve the value/price ratio. A firm may have an overall compositional strategy that is composed of some or all of the five basic compositional strategies. I argue there are three indispensable key success factors for a composition-based competition, i.e., aspiration (ambition-position asymmetry), attitude (being ALERT), and action (turning asymmetry into advantage). I also discuss the particular relevance of the present theory to understanding Chinese firms. I conclude with managerial implications and suggestions for future research.

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to describe the status of culture studies within the field of international business research, and to examine how two main paradigms – essentialism and social constructivism – relate to the discourse in this field. We analyze the main points of the two paradigms, and discuss how the relationship between them has evolved.
Findings - We show that essentialism and social constructivism have a paradoxical relationship. They seem to be mutually exclusive, yet each offers unique insights into the notion of culture. Both are necessary for a complete understanding of culture, yet they cannot be integrated in any normal sense. We see the relationship between the two paradigms as paradoxical: that is, we see them as ontologically complementary yet epistemologically incommensurable. Taking inspiration from Bohr’s principle of complementarity, we understand the two competing paradigms of culture studies as both necessary and yet as incompatible.
Research limitations - Future research should help to improve the conceptual clarity with which the relationship between the two paradigms is portrayed here, thereby enhancing the empirical rigor of the argument we make in this paper.
Practical implications – We encourage practitioners to learn how to switch, both sequentially and spatially, between the two paradigms of culture (fundamentally incommensurable though they are). This involves taking a “both/or” approach to the two paradigms.
Originality/Value - We show for the first time that Bohr’s complementarity principle is illustrative and useful for understanding the paradoxical relationship between essentialism and social constructivism. Inspired by two principles enunciated by Bohr – that of complementarity and that of classical concepts – we argue that the two competing paradigms are necessary yet
3
incommensurable. We therefore suggest that culture scholars switch between the two paradigms, instead of seeing each as negating the other.

Filer i denne post: 1

(1) The essence of Yin-Yang is that yin and yang are contrary yet
complementary.
阴阳的本质是阴阳是相生相克的关系。
(2) This contrary yet complementary relationship can be described by three
characteristics of Yin-Yang: nonexclusivability, transformability, and
coopetitionability. Nonexclusivability means that anything contains yin
and yang elements and neither yin nor yang elements can be excluded
because within both elements there is a seed of the opposite element.
Due to the existence of a seed of the opposite element, the yin and yang
elements can be mutually transformed when the opposite seed grow to a
certain size. Due to this possible growth of the inside opposite element,
the relationship between yin and yang and their inside opposite element
is one of competition and cooperation, i.e. coopetition. When the
configuration ratio of an element’s opposite seed is within the range of
1% to 25%1, their relationship is more co-operative than competitive, and therefore there is more synergy than tradeoff between them. The closer
the ratio is to 25%, the stronger the synergy. When the ratio is within the
range of 25% to 49%, their relationship is more competitive than
cooperative, and therefore there is more tradeoff than synergy between
them. The closer the ratio is to 49%, the stronger the tradeoff.
阴阳的相生相克关系可以描述为三个特性：不可排除性、相互转化性、竞
争合作性。不可排除性是指任何事物都包含阴阳两个对立元素，二者之任
何一个均不可能被排除在我，这是因为在阴或阳元素内部天然的包含着对
立元素的种子。正是因为这个种子的天然存在，阴和阳元素可以互相转
化，这种转化发生在对立元素种子成长到一定程度的时候。正是由于这种
对立元素的成长可能性，阴或阳元素和它内部的对立元素之间的关系是既
竞争又合作的。当内部的对立元素占总体元素的力量比例在1%到25%之
间时，两者的关系是合作多于竞争，越靠近25%这个点，这种合作的协同
效果也强烈。当这个搭配比例处于25%到49%之间时，它们的关系将是
竞争多于合作，也就是他们更多互相排斥而非互相促进。当这个比例越靠
近49%，这种排斥效应越强烈。

The organizational capacity to cope with unexpected changes remains a fundamental challenge in strategy as global competition and technological innovation increase environmental uncertainty. Whereas conventional strategy-making often is conceived as a sequential linear process, we see it as a non-linear interaction between top-down and bottom-up mechanisms dealing with multiple actions taken throughout the organization over time. It is driven by intension but with a flexible balance between centralized (planned) and decentralized (spontaneous) activities where strategy formulation and implementation interact. We adopt the frame of complementary Yin-Yang elements and Zhong Yong balance to explain the time bound interaction between these opposing yet complementary strategy-making mechanisms where tradeoffs and synergies are balanced across hierarchical levels. The model outlines how the interaction between top-down and bottom-up mechanisms shape sustainable strategic responses.

When analysing modes of navigating cross-cultural business communities most IB studies employ an etic approach that delineates how ethnically owned companies thrive and manoeuvre in complex cross-cultural business environments. This approach implies employing theoretical models and empirical observations that from a methodological point of view identify a local entrepreneur either as an objectified agent or as an anonymous ‘other’ thus pointing towards the assumption that such an approach has its roots in an ethnocentric academic tradition. This article goes beyond an etic approach and introduces an emic approach in which it is the local entrepreneurs themselves, who provide the main bulk of data on why and how they position themselves in a cross-cultural business environment the way they do. The main objective of this study is thus to show how local entrepreneurs develop business strategies so as to navigate and grow their companies in a complex cross-cultural business environments. The discussion on local entrepreneurship begins by outlining a theoretical framework for how to approach emic studies and from there proceeds towards suggesting a methodological approach that is capable of providing the empirical data that supports a theoretical framework based on an emic approach. The focus in this paper is thus to excavate how local entrepreneurs manoeuvres in a multi-cultural business context by combining both an etic and emic approach.

Filer i denne post: 1

This paper describes the current state of the management academia as a naked
carnival, namely, most of the management researches have no such a clothes called
practical relevance. It is intended to provide an explanation why management
research has become irrelevant to the real management practice. It argues there are
three factors behind the irrelevance problem: first, the ‘scientific model’ of
management studies generates an initial and internal force which pushes the
management research away from practice management studies supposed to serve;
second, paradigm maintenance effort of the mainstream management scholars
prevents the irrelevant management academia moving back towards management
practice; third, the surrounding environment provides the management academia
anything but a strong counter force to change the irrelevance reality. This paper also
argues any solutions under the ‘scientific model’ are doomed to failure; and the only
way out is to completely abandon the ‘scientific model’ and adopt a ‘professional
model’ of management studies. Unfortunately, this paper argues such a radical
change from within is highly unlikely to happen.

The organizational capacity to cope with unexpected changes remains a fundamental challenge in strategy as global competition and technological innovation increase environmental uncertainty. Conventional strategy-making is often conceived as a sequential linear process where we see it as a non-linear interaction between top-down and bottom-up mechanisms dealing with multiple actions taken throughout the organization over time. It is driven by intension but with a flexible balance between centralized (planned) and decentralized (spontaneous) activities. We adopt the principles of complementary Yin-Yang elements and Zhong Yong balance to explain the time bound interaction between these opposing yet complementary strategy-making mechanisms where tradeoffs and synergies are balanced across hierarchical levels.

Filer i denne post: 1

This paper is intended to propose a relationship-based theory of the firm (R’BT), an
alternative to the transaction cost theory. The R’BT takes relationship disharmony
(rather than transaction costs) as its basic unit of analysis of the nature of the firm, and
argues relationship disharmony derives from conflict of interests, a problem faced by
any human organizations; to reduce the conflict of interests, the best way is to
harmonize relationships by mutually accommodating or internalizing the other party’s
interests into its own consideration; the degree of harmony or disharmony in the
relationships will in turn determine the performance of the organization in question.
This paper provides a completely different explanation from the transaction cost
economics when addressing issues such like the existence, boundary and internal
organization of the firm. Also discussed are its implications for organizational
management and economy.

Filer i denne post: 1

In a recent article in European Management Review, Pitelis and Teece (2009) argue that extant explanations of the nature and scope of firms, such as transaction costs, property rights, metering team production, and resource-based, can be integrated into a more general (capability-based) theory of the firm. Despite acknowledging their account offers new insights on the issue, I am critical of their claim that the (dynamic) capability-based perspective can integrate the existing theories, which they in fact have failed to substantiate for three reasons. Firstly, they downplay the role of opportunism and simply categorize it as a kind of market failure, which they suspect its explanatory power. Secondly, their account is entrepreneur-centric, ignoring the role of employees in the formation of the firm, a problem they see in the transaction cost theory but nevertheless fail to address themselves. Thirdly, their critique of the market-failure-based explanation is problematic. I briefly introduce my own relationship-based theory as an alternative integration of the existing theories.

Filer i denne post: 1

This paper presents a critique of Freek Vermeulen’s synthesis of rigor and relevance in
management research, and argues (1) at the first glance, Vermeulen’s papers are very
appealing; (2) but with a closer scrutiny, we can unveil the weak and shaky
foundations of his argument; (3) as a consequence, his solution of ‘adding a second
loop’ to make management research meet dual needs of rigor and relevance is illusory
and merely an applied science fiction; (4) and finally, there are two real contributions
of his papers to the irrelevance debate, but they are not like what we might have
thought.

Filer i denne post: 1

Just like scholars distinguish two types of firm’s external environment, i.e., competitive and institutional, we make a distinction between two types of firm’s internal environment, i.e., resources and organization. Based on this distinction, we propose an organization-based view of strategy (OBV), not only as a label to unite various organization-related issues within the strategy field, but also as a fourth research paradigm to supplement to three existing paradigms, i.e., industry- or competition-based view (CBV), resource-based view (RBV), and institution-based view (IBV). Bringing the four paradigms together, we transform Mike Peng’s ‘strategy tripod’ into a ‘strategy quadrapod’. By proposing an organization-resource-institution-competition (ORIC) analysis and a situation-action-performance (SAP) framework, we attempt to make a grand integration of the strategy field.

We argue, due to the conspicuous failure of Washington Consensus-guided
reforms in most part of the developing world in 1990s and the outbreak of the
current global financial crisis, Washington Consensus, as a general term of the
neoliberal free market economic thinking, has been withering. In the meantime,
Chinese economic model has gain wide recognition and praise worldwide.
Joshua C. Ramo coined the term of Beijing Consensus as an alternative
approach to economic development for developing nations. There has been hot
debate on the notion of Beijing Consensus. We argue even though there are
some problems in Ramo’s original definition of Beijing Consensus, we should
not reject this notion altogether. Instead, we should try to come up with better
conceptualizations of this term. In this paper, we sum up ten general principles
of the Chinese development model as our new definition of the Beijing
Consensus.

Filer i denne post: 1

In this paper, I argue that all the existing theories of the firm, i.e., the transaction cost, knowledge-based, and entrepreneurial theories, are insightful yet partial since they only deal with one or another possible situation in which the first ever firm came to exist. In addition, all of them have a common problem of buyer/entrepreneur/firm-centrism because they all ignore the role of employees in the formation of the firm. I argue, since they are complementary to each other, a new, comprehensive and integrative theory of the firm must be able to unify them with a consideration of employees. I propose a relationship-based theory of the firm (R’BT) as such a candidate theory. The R’BT places the employer-employee (or broader, firm-stakeholder) relationships at the centre of its whole theoretical framework and argues that the notion of relationship harmony is fundamental in explaining the nature of the firm.

The starting point of this PhD research is two observations. The first is that people often tend to
discuss a country’s national competitiveness in a general tone, i.e., judging a country to be either
competitive or uncompetitive, rather than making more balanced assessment, and therefore their
opinions often contradict each other. The second observation is that there are many competing
international reports that rank a large number of countries in terms of their national competitiveness.
These reports often provide different rankings for a given country (e.g., China), and therefore the
readers of these reports are often left with a confusing picture. The first observation reflects the
reality that there has been a lack of commonly accepted definition of national competitiveness. The
second reflects the methodological problems of the indexing-and-ranking methods commonly used
by international competitiveness reports...

Filer i denne post: 1

This paper argues that the existing four major theories of the firm, i.e., the transaction cost theory, resource-based view, the entrepreneurial theory, and the stakeholder theory, are all insightful yet partial because each of them has a particular focus on the phenomenon of the firm. To better understand the nature and behaviors of the firm, we need a comprehensive yet integrative theory. Toward this end, this paper proposes a relationship-based theory of the firm (R’BT) which claims that it is the relationships between the entrepreneur and other individuals or firms that determine the existence, boundary, internal organization and competitive advantage of the firm.